O'Bannon, Jr. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al

Filing 240

MOTION to Admit Exhibits filed by Edward C. O'Bannon, Jr.. Motion Hearing set for 6/25/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken. Responses due by 6/24/2014. Replies due by 6/25/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O)(Bojedla, Swathi) (Filed on 6/23/2014)

Download PDF
Exhibit I THE STATE OF NCAA DIVISION I FOOTBALL: A SURVEY OF DIVISION I-A & I-AA PRESIDENTS & CHANCELLORS ! " Final Report Prepared for: Prepared by: January 2002 100 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 (603) 422-7600 2487-1 CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................... i INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................ 1 Study Objectives.................................................................................................... 1 Study Method......................................................................................................... 1 RESEARCH FINDINGS ............................................................................. 3 Overall Strengths & Weaknesses......................................................................... 3 Greatest Strengths..................................................................................... 3 Greatest Weaknesses................................................................................. 4 Mixed Reactions ........................................................................................ 6 Financial Status of College Football .................................................................... 8 Current Status ........................................................................................... 8 Long-term Outlook ................................................................................... 9 Impact of Current Economy .................................................................. 10 Current Bowl/Championship System................................................................ 12 Overall View ............................................................................................ 12 Greatest Strengths................................................................................... 12 Greatest Weaknesses............................................................................... 13 Mixed Reactions ...................................................................................... 14 Primary Concerns ................................................................................... 14 Student-Athlete Welfare ..................................................................................... 17 Overall View ............................................................................................ 17 Specific Aspects of Student-Athlete Welfare ........................................ 18 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................... 21 APPENDIX: 2487-2 List of respondents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the fall of 2001, the NCAA commissioned The Taylor Research & Consulting Group, Inc., to conduct a survey of Division I-A and I-AA presidents and chancellors. The purpose of this survey was to collect input from these critical stakeholders on a number of important issues the Football Study Oversight Committee (FSOC) has been charged with studying. The research consisted of one-on-one interviews with presidents and chancellors of Division I-A and I-AA institutions. A total of 91 presidents and chancellors were interviewed for this research64 from Division I-A institutions and 27 from Division IAA schools. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and included a mix of closed-ended questions to collect ratings on specific issues, along with a number of openended questions designed to collect unstructured input from respondents. Some of the key findings from this research include the following: 1. There are many strengths and positive things about college football. The greatest strengths of college football include the opportunities for higher education it provides to many who otherwise would not have access to it; it offers a rewarding, enriching, positive experience to student-athletes; it provides tremendous entertainment value to the institutional community and the general public; it helps foster pride and community spirit; it can help develop important bonds between institutions and their host communities. 2. There are also a number of significant problems and concerns that need to be addressed. The biggest concerns involve finances and costs of running programs; achieving the right balance between academics and athletics; addressing what is seen as the growing gap between the ‘haves” and “have-nots” among I-A schools; the lack of racial diversity on coaching staffs; and an overemphasis on winning as the primary definition of a successful program. 3. The areas where presidents and chancellors think action most needs to be taken are the following: Require greater emphasis on academics, with penalties that have real bite for #$ institutions that do not meet specified graduation rates for student-athletes. A #$ more equitable distribution of postseason revenues. Help from the NCAA for I-AA schools in marketing their programs better. #$ 2487-3 Greater involvement on the part of presidents and chancellors in addressing #$ these key issues by reasserting their authority over their own programs. 2487-4 ii The Taylor Group INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND STUDY OBJECTIVES In the fall of 2001, the NCAA commissioned The Taylor Research & Consulting Group, Inc., to conduct a survey of Division I-A and I-AA presidents and chancellors. The purpose of this survey was to collect input from these critical stakeholders on a number of important issues the Football Study Oversight Committee (FSOC) has been charged with studying. The survey was designed to collect opinions, thoughts, and suggestions from presidents and chancellors on the following key issues: An #$ overall assessment of the state of Division I college football. An #$ evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of college football, including specific areas such as the student-athlete experience, racial diversity among coaching staffs, attendance, television, marketing and promotion, and public perceptions of the game. The current financial status of the game and its future outlook. #$ The structure of postseason competition. #$ Student-athlete welfare. #$ Suggestions for maximizing the long-term strength and viability of college #$ football. STUDY METHOD The research consisted of one-on-one interviews with presidents and chancellors of Division I-A and I-AA institutions. The interviews were conducted by highly trained executive interviewers by telephone between November 11, 2001, and January 14, 2002. The interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes each and consisted of a series of closedended questions to collect ratings on a range of specific issues, along with a number of open-ended questions where respondents were given an opportunity to discuss their thoughts on the issues raised in the interview. The NCAA provided The Taylor Group with a list of 76 Division I-A and 37 Division I-AA institutions to contact for participation in this study. All potential 2487-5 respondents were sent a letter from President Wethington, chairman of the FSOC, outlining the purpose and goals of the survey and asking for the respondent’s participation. A total of 91 presidents and chancellors were interviewed for this research64 from Division I-A institutions and 27 from Division I-AA schools.1 This constitutes an exceptionally high response rate of more than 80%. 1 A full list of participating institutions and respondents is included in the appendix to this report. 2487-6 2 The Taylor Group RESEARCH FINDINGS OVERALL STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES When asked to rate a variety of eight specific aspects of college football overall as either strengths or weaknesses, some clear distinctions emerged both within and between I-A and I-AA respondents. At the broadest level, I-A respondents are more likely than their I-AA colleagues to see more strengths in college football. Both groups, however, clearly agree on what the greatest weaknesses arenamely finances and the racial diversity of coaching staffs. Greatest Strengths Among I-A respondents there are four issues that emerged clearly as being strengths of college football, i.e., where a majority of I-A respondents rated them as being a strength. Those strengths include the following: The student-athlete experience: A total of 75% see this as a strength (22% as #$ a “major strength” and another 53% as a “strength”). The public’s perception of college football: A total of 65% see this as a #$ strength (17% as a “major strength” and another 48% as a “strength”). Attendance: A total of 62% see this as a strength (30% as a “major strength” #$ and another 32% as a “strength”). The marketing and promotion of college football: A total of 62% also see #$ this as a strength (14% as a “major strength” and another 48% as a “strength”). Among I-AA respondents, however, only one issuethe student-athlete experiencewas seen as a strength by a majority of respondents (65%, with 23% saying it is a “major strength” and the remaining 42% a “strength.”) If we also look at the open-ended commentary and discussion that took place during these interviews, there are a number of themes that emerge clearly as strengths of college football. Those strengths include the following: Opportunity: It provides the opportunity for a college education to many #$ individuals who otherwise would not be able to go to college. 2487-7 3 The Taylor Group Exposure: It provides a great deal of positive exposure for institutions. #$ Entertainment: It offers tremendous entertainment value—for the student #$ body, alumni, and the general public at large. Pride and Spirit: It fosters a sense of pride, spirit, and enthusiasm among the #$ campus community and alumni. Community Relations: It offers opportunities for the development of #$ important ties between the institution and its larger surrounding community. Positive Experience: It provides a unique, positive experience for student#$ athletes, e.g., it is an enjoyable experience and it teaches important values that will serve them well later in life. Greatest Weaknesses Two issues that clearly emerge as weaknesses of college football for a large majority of institution headsthe financial status of the game and the racial diversity of coaching staffs. The financial status of college football: Among I-A respondents a total of #$ 64% see this as a weakness (36% as a “major weakness” and another 28% as a “weakness”), while among I-AA respondents a total of 84% see this as a weakness (44% as a “major weakness” and another 40% as a “weakness”). Racial diversity among head coaches and coaching staffs: Among I-A #$ respondents a total of 78% see this as a weakness (42% as a “major weakness” and another 36% as a “weakness”), while among I-AA respondents a total of 72% see this as a weakness (36% as a “major weakness” and another 36% as a “weakness”). With regard to the financial status of college football, there are a few factors that underlie the feeling that this is a weakness. First, there is a widespread perception that only a small proportion of programs at both the I-A and I-AA levels either break even or turn a profit, i.e., bring in more revenue than their expenses. In addition, many respondents feel that too much money is spent on football programs. “We spend way too much money.” “The fact is, most I-AA programs are operating at a major deficit.” “It’s expensive, and few of us have revenues that would even begin to cover the expenses.” 2487-8 4 The Taylor Group “The fact that most universities—beyond the top 20 to 25—are not self-supporting with respect to athletics programs is college athletics’ greatest financial shortcoming.” “When you only have about 10% of your schools that are either breaking even or making any money . . . you’d have to consider that a weakness.” Second, there is a feeling among many that an “arms race” has evolved in college football, where a lot of schools feel pressure to spend more and more money on facilities and high-priced coaches in order to have a successful program that hopefully will generate enough revenue to support both the football program as well as other sports programs. “Coaches’ salaries are outlandish—a fraction of what those running schools make. Schools are therefore thrust into cost wars and keeping up with the Joneses, which sends a bad message.” “We’re spending too much money on the arms race, salaries, and budgets that are escalating at an alarming rate.” “If there is a threat hanging over football, it is the multi-million dollar stadium, locker rooms, and the $2 million paid for a football coach. Only a handful of schools in this country can afford this madness—and it is nothing but madness.” Finally, among I-A respondents there is clearly a perception that there is a disturbing disparity between the “haves and have-nots” that is closely linked to the BCS system, meaning that a small number of institutions reap enormous financial benefits from the BCS while most other schools get little or nothing. “Financially, there is a time bomb in the growing chasm between the haves and have-nots in college football.” “It’s an oligopoly, where 60% of the schools exclude 40% from sharing in the money. The Bowl Championship Series reserves 80 to 90% of the money for themselves. . . . Six conferences have been able to tie up the funds, and it doesn’t matter how good you are. If you’re not in there, you don’t get it.” “I think the alignment of BCS vs. Non-BCS is just creating a bigger class of haves and have-nots. If there is an overall escalation of costs for coaches and facilities, then everyone is having to pay for it.” In terms of the racial diversity of coaching staffs, respondents overwhelmingly feel that minorities, particularly African-Americans, are not sufficiently represented in the coaching ranks of Division I football, especially at the head coach level. Quite simply, the thinking of presidents and chancellors is that there is too great an imbalance between the proportion of African-Americans in the coaching ranks and among the players. Their feeling seems to be that not enough effort has been made to recruit and 2487-9 5 The Taylor Group develop minority coaches. Beyond issues of simple fairness (which are absolutely important) some also feel there is a negative cost of this situation in that it deprives African-American and other minority players of good role models who they can easily relate to and with whom they can identify. “The numbers of minorities holding head coaching positions is deplorable.” “There has not been sufficient effort made to recruit minority coaches and provide the support they need.” “The coaching staff does not reflect the student-athlete diversity at all. This is a problem for both role modeling and from a career standpoint for the coaches involved.” College Football—Strengths and Weaknesses Is each of the following a strength or weakness: The student-athlete experience Public’s perception of college football Attendance Marketing & promotion of college football Television Structure of postseason competition Financial status of college football Racial diversity among head coaches/staff I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA Major Strength 22% 23% 17% 12% 30% 16% 14% 12% 30% 19% 8% 4% 5% 0% 7% 4% A Strength 53% 42% 48% 35% 32% 24% 48% 27% 21% 27% 29% 31% 11% 4% 8% 8% Mixed Neither /Both 4% 11% 4% 12% 11% 13% 15% 12% 22% 8% 28% 12% 11% 11% 23% 12% 6% 29% 15% 4% 11% 6% 35% 4% 6% 14% 4% 8% 7% 2% 8% 8% A Weakness 6% 12% 8% 12% 8% 12% 13% 15% 10% 15% 22% 23% 28% 40% 36% 36% Major Weakness 3% 8% 3% 15% 2% 8% 3% 12% 5% 19% 24% 4% 36% 44% 42% 36% Mixed Reactions Among I-AA respondents there were very mixed reactions to five of these eight issues, with significant proportions of respondents rating some as strengths and others seeing them as weaknesses, while still others think they cut both ways. These five issues where I-AA respondents have very mixed reactions follow: 2487-10 6 The Taylor Group The public’s perception of college football: Of the respondents, 47% see this #$ as a strength while 27% see it as a weakness, with the remainder saying it is “neither” or “both.” Television: There were 46% who see this as a strength, while 34% see it as a #$ weakness, with the remainder saying it is “neither” or “both.” Attendance: A total of 40% see this as a strength, while 20% see it as a #$ weakness, with the remainder saying it is “neither” or “both.” The marketing and promotion of college football: There were 39% who see #$ this as a strength, while 27% see it as a weakness, with the remainder saying it is “neither” or “both.” The structure of postseason competition: Of the respondents, 35% see this as #$ a strength, while 27% see it as a weakness, with the remainder saying it is “neither” or “both.” Among I-A respondents reactions were also mixed on the issues of television and the structure of postseason competition. On the issue of television, I-A respondents are mostly positive with 51% seeing it as a strength. However, a substantial proportion (29%) think it cuts both ways, while another 15% see it as a weakness. They are, however, much less likely than their I-AA colleagues to see television as a weakness. With regard to the structure of postseason competition, I-A respondents are more polarized than they are on the issue of television and they tilt more toward the negative, with 46% seeing it as a weakness compared with only 37% who see it as a strength. Given the very different structure of postseason competition between I-A and I-AA, it is interesting to note that I-A respondents are substantially more likely than their I-AA counterparts to feel this is a weakness of college football. The primary concerns about the BCS system are that it is seen as unfairin terms of how participants are decided “by a computer” and that participation is restricted to certain schools. Many respondents suggested that a playoff system of some type would be better. There was also a feeling expressed by some that many of the bowls exist simply as popular entertainment and as sources of revenue for television, but that they have little to do with what respondents see as the proper role or function of college athletics. “They allow a computer to decide who gets to play, as opposed to letting teams’ winning records and ability on the field determine it.” “I think the system is not fair fundamentally. It’s just not fair that the major opportunities are only accorded to a small percentage of the divisions.” “There is no public confidence that the best teams go to the bowls.” 2487-11 7 The Taylor Group “There is virtually no opportunity for non-BCS schools to play in the bowl games.” “The bowl system is out of hand. There are far too many bowls. You now even have a few teams playing in the bowls with losing records.” “There are too many bowls and they’re of lesser significance.” Looking at additional open-ended comments from respondents about what they see as the main weaknesses of college football, the most important general themes that emerged include the following: The cost: Trying to run a successful football program is becoming #$ increasingly expensive and burdensome. The imperative to win: There is too much emphasis on winning as the #$ definition of success, which then drives other decisions. Over-commercialization: College football is becoming over-commercialized #$ and too much like a business. Lack of academics/athletics balance: For programs and individual student#$ athletes, there is too much conflict or a lack of balance between academics and athletic success—with the former too often sacrificed for the latter. The haves and have-nots: There is too much inequity between the top 20-30 #$ I-A programs and all the rest who are trying to compete but finding it increasingly difficult to do so—a growing split between the “haves” and “have-nots.” FINANCIAL STATUS OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL Overall, very few Division I presidents and chancellors think the current financial status of college football is very healthy, and there are many who think the sport has some significant financial problems. Their perspective on the long-term financial outlook is also not much more positive. Current Status In terms of the current financial status of college football, only 5% of I-A respondents and 0% of I-AA respondents think it is “very healthy.” Division I-AA respondents, however, are more concerned about the sport’s current financial status than are their I-A colleagues. 2487-12 8 The Taylor Group Among I-AA respondents, 35% think the sport’s current financial status is #$ healthy but that there are developments that concern them, while a large majority of 65% think the sport has significant financial problems right now. Among I-A respondents, a slim majority of 51% think the sport’s current #$ financial status is healthy but they have some concerns, while a smaller 44% think the sport has significant financial problems. Long-term Outlook Looking to the long-term financial outlook for college football, Division I-A and I-AA respondents have very similar reactions. Again, very few think the long-term outlook is “solidly positive,” while most think it is either “mixed” or a “big concern.” Among I-A respondents, only 8% think the long-term financial outlook is #$ “solidly positive,” while a majority of 52% think the outlook is “mixed” and the remaining 41% see “big concerns” surrounding finances. Among I-AA respondents, none of these respondents think the long-term #$ financial outlook is “solidly positive,” while most (54%) think the outlook is “mixed” and the remaining 46% have “big concerns” about the sport’s finances. The issues that are driving the opinions of presidents and chancellors about the current and future financial status of college football coalesce around what they see as skyrocketing costs—for coaches’ salaries, scholarships, facilities, equipment, insurance, and travel, plus what they see as a situation where only large schools are making a profit and a lack of equitable revenue sharing of TV receipts. “It’s getting tremendously more expensive. You have costs associated with athletic scholarships, coaches’ salaries and equipment, medical insurance, facilities, and so on. The expense equation is getting out of hand.” “Coaches’ salaries and television money promote the chasm between the haves and the have-nots.” “The system is financially rewarding to some and a struggle for others. The system is unfair.” “The financial status is very good for the largest six conferences, but very bad for everybody else.” “Universities are investing an enormous amount of money in new facilities and they are paying their coaches an enormous amount of money. I think that’s the 2487-13 9 The Taylor Group pathway to bankruptcy. I think people are expecting—for competitive reasons— universities to spend more money than they have.” “I wish we could find ways to provide additional income to colleges below those at the very top of the food chain.” “Revenue generated through games and contracts should be spread evenly throughout Division I, similar to basketball.” Impact of Current Economy Respondents were also asked about the impact on their institution, if any, of the current economic conditions in the country. Most expect there to be some impacts, while many have already experienced some negative consequences. There are some generalized concerns that fund-raising for their institutions may become more difficult as a result of the weakened economy, and that alumni may be less generous with their donations because of the recession. In terms of their football programs in particular, there was some speculation (though not extremely widespread) that attendance may suffer somewhat as consumers cut back on discretionary spending for entertainment. By far, however, the biggest impact to date has been at public institutions where many of these presidents and chancellors said they have already had to deal with budget cutbacks (in some cases significant ones) due to cuts in higher education funds appropriated by their state legislatures. 2487-14 10 The Taylor Group Financial Status of College Football Division I-A Respondents 51% 52% 44% 41% 8% 5% Long-term financial outlook Current financial status V e ry healthy Solidly positive Mixed A big concern He althy, b ut have c once rns S ig nific ant f inanc ial p rob le m s Which of the following best expresses your opinion about the current financial status of college football? Which of the following best expresses your opinion about the long-term financial outlook for college football? 11 Financial Status of College Football Division I-AA Respondents 65% 54% 46% 35% 0% 0% Long-term financial outlook Current financial status Ve ry healthy Solidly positive Mixed A big concern He althy, b ut have c once rns Sig nific ant f inanc ial p rob le m s Which of the following best expresses your opinion about the current financial status of college football? Which of the following best expresses your opinion about the long-term financial outlook for college football? 2487-15 11 12 The Taylor Group CURRENT BOWL/CHAMPIONSHIP SYSTEM Most Division I presidents and chancellors feel that the current bowl or championship system needs some changeseither minor modifications or a major overhaul. Only a small minority feels the system works just fine as is and does not need any modifications. The biggest strengths of the current system are seen as the studentathlete experience and conference affiliations with bowl games or championship qualification, while the greatest weaknesses focus on finances and methods of selecting teams for bowl system games (among I-A respondents). Overall View When asked for their overall opinion of the current bowl (I-A) or championship (I-AA) system, only around 2 in 10 Division I presidents and chancellors think the current system works well as it is and doesn’t need any changes. Among the majority who do think some changes are needed, I-A respondents are evenly split on whether minor changes are needed or a significant overhaul is called for. Division I-AA respondents are most likely to think only minor modifications are necessary, and they are much less likely than their I-A colleagues to think a significant overhaul is needed. Among I-A respondents, 40% think the bowl system “works well, but minor #$ modifications are needed,” while a nearly equal number (42%) feel the bowl system needs a “significant overhaul.” Among I-AA respondents, a majority of 50% think the championship system #$ needs minor modifications, while a much smaller proportion (29%) think it needs a “significant overhaul.” Greatest Strengths Among I-A and I-AA respondents alike, there were two issues that were seen as being strengths of the current bowl system. Those strengths include the following: The student-athlete experience: Of I-A respondents, 84% see this as a #$ strength (40% as a “major strength” and another 44% as a “strength”), as do 68% of I-AA respondents (32% as a “major strength” and another 36% as a “strength”). Conference affiliation with bowl/championship system games: Of I-A #$ respondents, 62% see this as a strength (19% as a “major strength” and another 43% as a “strength”), as do 67% of I-AA respondents (21% as a “major strength” and another 46% as a “strength”). 2487-16 12 The Taylor Group Current Bowl/Championship System Division I-A Respondents 40% Division I-AA Respondents 50% 42% 29% 21% 18% Current I-A bow l system C urrent I-A A championship system W orks w ell M inor modifications needed S ignificant ov erhaul needed W orks well Minor modific ations needed S ignific ant ov erhaul needed Which statement comes closest to your view of the current bowl/championship system? 15 Greatest Weaknesses The one aspect of the current bowl/championship system most likely to be seen as a weakness by both I-A and I-AA respondents is the issue of finances. Current bowl/championship system finances: Slightly fewer than a majority #$ of I-A respondents (45%) see this as a weakness (20% as a “major weakness” and another 25% as a “weakness”), as do 63% of I-AA respondents (37% as a “major weakness” and another 26% as a “weakness”). In addition, nearly half of I-A respondents (48%) also think the method of selecting teams for bowl system games is a weakness, with 23% thinking this is a “major weakness” and the remaining 25% saying it’s a “weakness.” 2487-17 13 The Taylor Group Perceptions of the Current Bowl/Championship System Is each of the following a strength or weakness: The student-athlete experience Conference affiliation with postseason games The number of games played Public’s perception of the current system Method of selecting teams for postseason games Current postseason system finances I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA Major Strength 40% 32% 19% 21% 16% 4% 3% 8% 8% 4% 5% 0% A Strength 44% 36% 43% 46% 35% 22% 39% 29% 25% 26% 25% 11% Neither 2% 18% 6% 8% 10% 39% 16% 29% 12% 35% 10% 26% Mixed /Both 10% 5% 5% 4% 6% 4% 10% 8% 8% 0% 16% 0% A Weakness 3% 5% 14% 17% 16% 17% 25% 8% 25% 35% 25% 26% Major Weakness 2% 5% 13% 4% 18% 13% 7% 17% 23% 0% 20% 37% Mixed Reactions There are two issues related to the bowl/championship system on which both I-A and I-AA have very mixed reactionsthe number of games played and the public’s perception of the current system. On each of these issues there are substantial proportions of respondents who see it as a strength, a weakness, or neither. The number of games played: A bare majority of I-A respondents (51%) see #$ this as a “strength” and 34% see it as a “weakness,” while around one in four I-AA respondents (26%) see it as a strength and 30% see it as a “weakness.” The public’s perception of the system: A plurality of I-A respondents (42%) #$ see this as a “strength” and 32% see it as a “weakness,” while almost 4 in 10 I-AA respondents (37%) see it as a strength and 25% see it as a “weakness.” Also, among I-AA respondents 30% think the method of selecting teams for championship system games is a strength, while almost equal numbers think this is either a weakness of the current system (35%) or neither a strength nor a weakness (35%). Primary Concerns The three issues related to the current bowl/championship system that were most likely to be seen as weaknesses were the number of games played, the method of selecting teams, and finances. Looking at the open-ended comments of respondents who 2487-18 14 The Taylor Group saw these as weaknesses provides some valuable insight into what they see as the fundamental problems or concerns. In terms of the number of games played, many are concerned that there are simply too many games that generate too little interest, that dilute the meaning of going to a bowl game, and that take too much time away from academics for the studentathlete. “They play too many games, which is a great stress on their academic performance. Likewise, it extends so long that we play this Saturday and all of our students have already gone home for the holidays. It’s difficult for students to be involved as spectators and supporters of the team.” “There are too many bowl games and it dilutes the entire meaning of going to a bowl game.” “The number of bowl games makes us look silly. Bowls are not special anymore. It would be like giving five Heisman trophies.” As for the method of selecting teams, this was more of a concern among I-A respondents, among which there are strong feelings that the current system is not entirely fair or equitable. “Bowl selections are made based on conference affiliations, attendance, and income rather than on a recognition of the best teams. Having playoffs would address this weakness.” “Only six conferences are eligible for the BCS structure, so if you’re outside that, you have no opportunity to play in the BCS bowl even if you are in the top 25 and have significant wins.” “I think that the bowls have become economic development activities for towns and for cities, and that distorts the original purpose of the bowl. The original purpose of bowls was to recognize outstanding teams. When a school is required to buy 25,000 tickets or make contributions to the cost of the bowl, that makes zero sense to me.” Finally, the most common themes surrounding the perception that finances are a weakness of the current bowl/championship system reflect concerns about the financial burden that going to a bowl game places on some schools (especially at the I-AA level), and the feeling that revenue generated by the system is not equitably distributed to member schools. “The costs of the additional games, including travel and associated activities, are not compensated by the popularity of the games associated with the 2487-19 15 The Taylor Group championships. There is almost never enough time to cover the expenses. Basically, it punishes a program for its success.” “The structure of the BCS series results in huge money going to just four bowls.” “The major bowls are financially sound, but minor ones can prove extremely costly to attend.” “It’s very good for the six largest conferences, but very bad for everybody else.” “The finances are a little ridiculous. Why would you fly halfway across the country with your mediocre team to play another mediocre team, which has no particular rivalry with your mediocre team, and you are paying money to do it to boot. The whole thing is ridiculous.” 2487-20 16 The Taylor Group STUDENT-ATHLETE WELFARE In terms of their overall view of student-athlete welfare and college football, I-A presidents and chancellors are significantly more positive than their I-AA colleagues. However, on a number of specific dimensions of student-athlete welfare, ranging from injuries and medical treatment to quality of life and education, there are relatively few differences of opinion between I-A and I-AA respondents. The issues of greatest concern in this area focus on educational matters such as graduation rates and quality of education. Overall View In terms of their overall view of college football student-athlete welfare, a majority of I-A respondents (52%) are “mostly positive” about where things stand today, while one-third of them (33%) have “mixed feelings” and the remaining 16% are “mostly concerned” about where things stand. In contrast to these data, only 15% of I-AA respondents are “mostly positive,” while a majority of 56% have “mixed feelings” and 30% are “mostly concerned” about the current situation. Student-Athlete Welfare Division I-A Respondents Division I-AA Respondents 5 6% 52 % 33% 3 0% 1 5% 16 % I-A A I-A Mos tly po sitiv e Mixed fe elings Mos tly co nc e rned M o stly po s itive M ixed fee lings M o stly co ncerne d Overall, as you think about student-athlete welfare in college football are you mostly positive, do you have mixed feelings, or are you mostly concerned about where things stand today? 22 2487-21 17 The Taylor Group Specific Aspects of Student-Athlete Welfare Across six different aspects of student-athlete welfare that respondents were asked about, opinions were very consistent between I-A and I-AA presidents and chancellors. On four of these six issues there were solid majorities of respondents who had a positive perspective, i.e., who agreed (either “strongly” or “somewhat”) that college football was taking positive steps in these areas. These four aspects of student-athlete welfare that respondents feel most positively about include the following: College football is taking positive steps to . . . Minimize football injuries and provide the best medical care: Of I-A #$ respondents, 97% agree with this (with 64% “strongly” agreeing), as do 93% of I-AA respondents (with 54% “strongly” agreeing). Ensure a strong quality of life for student-athletes: Of I-A respondents, 86% #$ agree “strongly” or “somewhat” with this, as do 78% of I-AA respondents. Encourage sportsmanship and good behavior: Of I-A respondents, 75% #$ agree “strongly” or “somewhat” with this, as do 69% of I-AA respondents. Maintain proper balance between athletics and academics: Of I-A #$ respondents, 57% agree “strongly” or “somewhat” with this, as do 62% of IAA respondents. We should note, however, that efforts to minimize injuries and provide the best medical care stands out as the one area where respondents feel much more strongly that college football is taking positive steps. Conversely, on the issue of maintaining proper balance between athletics and academics we should note that the generally positive data cited above are in fact quite soft in that only very few respondents “strongly” agree that positive steps are being taken on this issue. The two remaining issues of student-athlete welfare that were asked aboutgraduation rates and quality of educationare areas where the opinions of presidents and chancellors are much more mixed and most likely to be negative. College football is taking positive steps to . . . Maintain high graduation rates among student-athletes: Division I-A #$ respondents are closely divided on this, with 53% agreeing and 47% disagreeing. Among I-AA respondents only 41% agree with this while a majority of 59% disagree. Make sure student athletes get the best education possible: Among I-A #$ respondents only 47% agree with this and a majority of 55% disagree, while 2487-22 18 The Taylor Group Division I-AA respondents are evenly split at 52% agreeing and 49% disagreeing. College Football and Student-Athlete Welfare Do you agree/disagree that college football is taking positive steps to: Minimize football injuries/provide best medical care for student-athletes Ensure a strong quality of life for student-athletes Encourage sportsmanship/good behavior among student-athletes Maintain proper balance between athletics and academics Maintain high graduation rates among student-athletes Make sure student-athletes get the best education possible I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA I-A I-AA Agree Strongly 64% 54% 28% 19% 20% 15% 5% 12% 17% 19% 13% 11% Agree Disagree Somewhat Somewhat 33% 2% 39% 4% 58% 13% 59% 11% 55% 17% 54% 31% 52% 34% 50% 15% 36% 27% 22% 33% 33% 39% 41% 19% Disagree Strongly 2% 4% 2% 11% 8% 0% 9% 23% 20% 26% 16% 30% Respondents had a lot to say about the issues of graduation rates and making sure student-athletes get the best possible education. Fundamentally, their concerns in these areas reflect strong feelings that member schools and the NCAA are not doing enough, that coaching staffs and schools too often pull student-athletes away from academics and steer them toward undemanding programs of study that will not serve them well later in life, and perhaps most simply that not enough time is allowed or required for academics. “We need to emphasize the student side of the student athlete more.” “There is too much emphasis on the amount of time in practice. . . . Either students are not taking their academics seriously, or the universities are admitting students who do not belong there in the first place.” “Unfortunately we’ve let college football take us away from the primary objective of educating athletes. The welfare of athletes should center on not just physical and medical care, but also academically. Are we giving them the proper classroom time and proper ‘away’ time from athletics? I think the answer is no.” “The NCAA hasn’t done anything at all to help maintain high graduation rates among student-athletes, and the rates are abominable across the board in college football.” “The record speaks for itself, with major football powers having only 35% graduation rates.” 2487-23 19 The Taylor Group “If you look at the graduation rate, they are all over the map, but for the most part they are fairly embarrassing. I think a lot of emphasis is put on just getting good athletes and whether they graduate or not is not as important.” “It is shameful that we have a number of institutions in the SEC that have graduation rates in the teens. It shows that they are not doing anything. What we need to do is tie scholarships to graduation rates.” “They need to have more breadth to their education, more than just time in the classroom and time on the practice field. They need to be part of the campus culture and student organizations other than football.” “With the exception of a handful of institutions, all too often universities come up with not very challenging majors for some student-athletes, who are then left without credentials that will help them in life.” “In many instances the student athletes are directed into majors and programs where their educational outcomes will not be challenged. They are never taught that they have to work as hard in the classroom as they do on the football field.” 2487-24 20 The Taylor Group CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Conclusions There is much that is positive about college football and much to be proud of. Among the many good things Division I presidents and chancellors see in college football, those that stand out most are the following: Opportunity: It provides opportunities for higher education to individuals #$ who otherwise might not have access to it. Positive Experience: It offers many student-athletes a rewarding, enriching, #$ valuable, and ultimately positive experience. Entertainment: It provides tremendous entertainment value both to the #$ institutional community (i.e., students, faculty, staff, and alumni) and the general public as well. Pride & Spirit: It can help foster the development of pride and community #$ spirit within the institutional community. Community Bonds: It can help in the development of important bonds #$ between institutions and their host communities. There are, however, problems and significant concerns that need to be addressed, primarily in terms of the following issues: Finances and Costs: There is strong feeling that it costs too much to run #$ football programs, that these costs are escalating out of control, and that football programs are becoming too much of a financial burden on institutions. Academics/Athletics Balance: There is extremely strong sentiment that this #$ is far out of balance in favor of athletics and that strong measures by both the NCAA and individual institutions should be taken. If not, then too many student-athletes will ultimately be ill served by their participation in college football. The “Haves and Have-nots”: There is a perception of a growing divide #$ between successful and unsuccessful programs in a limited number of I-A conferences that reap the lion’s share of the benefits from the current structure of postseason competition. 2487-25 21 The Taylor Group Racial Diversity: The representation of minorities, particularly African#$ Americans, is nowhere near where it ought to be given the prevalence of minority players on teams. Overemphasis on Winning: Many presidents and chancellors feel Division I #$ college football has gotten too far away from what college football ought to be about and what role it should play at their institutions, and much of this is driven by what they feel is an overemphasis on winning as the primary definition of what makes for a successful program. What Needs to Be Done 1. Require greater emphasis on academics. This should happen both in terms of the admission standards used and academic performance standards applied after studentathletes are in school. Some specific suggestions include: Reducing the time demands of athletics on student-athletes. %$ Imposing real penalties with bite, e.g., taking away scholarships for schools that %$ do not demonstrate appropriate emphasis on academics by meeting specified graduation rates for student athletes. “We need to impose penalties, such as loss of scholarships and participation in postseason play for lack of academic success. We need to tie opportunities to legitimate academic success.” “There should be coaching incentives tying their compensation to academics.” 2. More equitable distribution of postseason revenues. Many respondents feel there has to be a better way to more equitably share revenues from postseason competition, which might help alleviate some of the financial burdens many schools are under. Many respondents at the I-A level think some kind of playoff system would be better in this regard than the current BCS system, which they regard as relatively closed and unfair. “Fundamentally, the NCAA needs to take charge of postseason football and then develop a revenue distribution that is fair.” “We have to figure out a more equitable way of doing the bowls and sharing the huge revenues that are out there for television.” 3. Help I-AA schools market better. A number of I-AA respondents suggested they would like more help from the NCAA in marketing their games, to help make them 2487-26 22 The Taylor Group more attractive and hopefully generate more revenue. “If the NCAA could assist I-AA with marketing, with television and with better financial support of the championship, it would be extraordinarily helpful.” “The NCAA needs to recognize the fiscal stress experienced by the I-AA institutions and provide additional support.” 4. Greater involvement of presidents and chancellors. A number of respondents feel that presidents and chancellors have to play a much more active role, to essentially reassert their authority over their own programs, in order to address the issues and concerns they have. “It is up to university presidents to decide priorities and to withstand the force that alumni and contributors may bring to bear on a particular institution. Presidents must, and do, understand that student-athletes are student-athletes and that they did come to the institution for academic work and not, primarily, football.” 2487-27 23 The Taylor Group Appendix 2487-28 24 The Taylor Group Division I-A Respondents University of Akron – David Schmidly, President Arizona State – Lattie Coor, President University of Arizona – Peter Likins, President Arkansas State – Leslie Wyatt, President Auburn University – William F. Walker, President Ball State University – Blaine Browell, President Baylor University – Robert B. Sloan, Jr., President Boston College – Father William P. Leahy, S.J., President Bowling Green State University – Sidney A. Ribeau, President Brigham Young University - Merrill J. Bateman, President California State University at Fresno - John Welty, President University of Central Florida - John C. Hitt, President Clemson University - James Barker, President East Carolina University - William Muse, Chancellor University of Florida, Gainesville - Charles Young, President University of Houston - Arthur Smith, President University of Idaho - Robert Hoover, President Kansas State University - Jon Wefald, President University of Kentucky - Lee Todd, President University of Louisiana at Lafayette - Ray Authement, President University of Louisiana at Monroe - Lawrence Swearingen, President Louisiana State University - Mark Emmert, President Louisiana Tech University - Daniel D. Reneau, President University of Louisville - John Shumaker, President Marshall University - Daniel Angel, President University of Minnesota - Mark G. Yudof, President Mississippi State University - Malcom Portera, President University of Mississippi - Robert C. Khayat, Chancellor University of Missouri, Columbia - Richard L. Wallace, Chancellor University of Nebraska - Harvey Perlman, Chancellor University of Nevada, Reno - John M. Lilley, President New Mexico State University - G. Jay Gogue, President University of New Mexico - William C. Gordon, President University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - James Moeser, Chancellor Northern Illinois University - John G. Peters, President Northwestern University - Henry S. Bienen, President Oklahoma State University - James Halligan, President Oregon State University - Paul Risser, President Pennsylvania State University - Graham B.Spanier, President Purdue University - Martin Jischke, President Rice University - Malcolm Gillis, President Rutgers University - Francis Lawrence, President University of Southern California - Steven Sample, President 2487-29 25 The Taylor Group University of Southern Florida - Judy Genshaft, President & Jack Wheat, Special Assistant Southern Methodist University - R. Gerald Turner, President University of Southern Mississippi - Aubrey Lucas, President Stanford University - John Hennessy, President Syracuse University - Kenneth Shaw, Chancellor Temple University - David Adamany, President University of Tennessee, Knoxville - Emerson H. Fly, President Texas A&M University, College Station - Dr. Ray M. Bowen, President Texas Tech - David Schmidly, President University of Toledo - Daniel Johnson, President Tulane University - Scott S. Cowen, President United States Air Force Academy - Lieutenant General John R. Dallager, President University of Utah - J. Bernard Machen, President Vanderbilt University - Chancellor Gee University of Virginia - John T. Casteen III, President Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University - Charles Steger, President Wake Forest University - Thomas K. Hearn, Jr., President University of Washington - Richard McCormick, President West Virginia University - David G. Hardesty, Jr., President Western Michigan University - Elson S. Floyd, President University of Wyoming - Philip Dubois, President 2487-30 26 The Taylor Group Division I-AA Respondents Alabama A&M University - John T Gibson, President University of Albany - Karen Hitchcock, President Alcorn State University - Clinton Bristow, Jr., President Central Connecticut University - Richard Judd, President College of the Holy Cross - Michael McFarland, S. J., President University of Delaware - David Roselle, President Drake University - David Maxwell, President Furman University - David Shi, President Georgia Southern University - Bruce Grube, President James Madison University - Linwood Rose, President University of Massachusetts, Amherst - Marcelette G. Williams, Chancellor Mississippi Valley State University - Lester Newman, President Morehead State University – Dr. Ron Eaglin, President University of New Hampshire - Joan Leitzel, President State University of New York at Stony Brook - Shirley S. Kenny, President Norfolk State University - Marie McDemmond, President Northeastern University - Richard M. Freeland, President University of Northern Iowa - Robert D. Koob, President Portland State University - Daniel O. Bernstine, President St. Francis University (Pennsylvania) - Christian Oravec, T.O.R., President St. Peter’s College - James N. Loughran S.J., President Stephen F. Austin State University - Tito Guerrero, President Southern Illinois University - Walter Wendler, Chancellor Southern Utah University - Steven Bennion, President Valparaiso University - Alan Harre, President Wagner College - Dr. Norman Smith, President Wofford College - Benjamin Dunlop, President 2487-31 27 The Taylor Group

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?